BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair 2015 - 2016 Regular Session AB 2101 (Gordon) - Sanctions: jurors ----------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- |--------------------------------+--------------------------------| | | | |Version: August 1, 2016 |Policy Vote: JUD. 7 - 0 | | | | |--------------------------------+--------------------------------| | | | |Urgency: No |Mandate: No | | | | |--------------------------------+--------------------------------| | | | |Hearing Date: August 1, 2016 |Consultant: Jolie Onodera | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File. Bill Summary: AB 2101 would establish a five-year pilot project authorizing a judicial officer of a participating court, as specified, to impose reasonable monetary sanctions of up to $1,500 on an impaneled juror for any knowing violation of a lawful court order, as specified. This bill would require the Judicial Council to conduct an evaluation of the pilot project and report the results of the pilot to the Governor and the Legislature on or before January 1, 2021. The report shall also examine whether the imposition of sanctions affects the number of prospective jurors who report for jury duty. Fiscal Impact: Pilot courts : Potential minor administrative costs to administer the monetary sanction policy. Potential future cost savings (General Fund*) to the participating courts to the extent courts impose monetary sanctions in lieu of initiating actions against jurors through civil contempt proceedings. Pilot project evaluation : One-time costs to the Judicial Council potentially in excess of $50,000 (General Fund*) to AB 2101 (Gordon) Page 1 of ? solicit program participants, collect pilot project data, evaluate the pilot project, and report to the Legislature and the Governor, including an evaluation of whether the imposition of sanctions affects the number of prospective jurors who report for jury duty. As the bill does not effectively limit the number of courts or the number of counties participating in the pilot, the workload required to evaluate the "pilot" project could vary widely. *Trial Court Trust Fund Background: Existing law provides, generally, that a judicial officer has the power to impose reasonable monetary sanctions, not to exceed $1,500, payable to the court, for any violation of a lawful court order by a person, done without good cause or substantial justification. For these purposes, "person" includes a witness, a party, a party's attorney, or both. Existing law provides that such sanctions shall not be imposed except on notice contained in a party's moving or responding papers; or on the court's own motion, after notice and opportunity to be heard. An order imposing sanctions shall be in writing and shall recite in detail the conduct or circumstances justifying the order. (Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) § 177.5.) Notwithstanding the judicial officer authority to impose monetary sanctions for violations of a lawful court order by a person, the definition of "person" under existing law does not include an impaneled juror. Juror misconduct constitutes numerous activities that take place during a trial, including but not limited to discussing a case with other jurors, talking with members of either party of a case, researching evidence outside of the court, and utilizing social media to discuss the case. Under existing law, accountability for juror misconduct may be addressed by holding the juror in civil contempt of the court. With respect to juror misconduct, existing law provides the following acts or omissions in respect to a court of justice, or proceedings therein, are contempts of the authority of the court: Willful disobedience by a juror of a court admonishment AB 2101 (Gordon) Page 2 of ? related to the prohibition on any form of communication or research about the case, including all forms of electronic or wireless communication or research. When summoned as a juror in a court, neglecting to attend or serve as a juror, or improperly conversing with a party to an action to be tried at the court, or with any other person, in relation to the merits of the action, or receiving a communication from a party or other person in respect to the action, without immediately disclosing the communication to the court. (CCP § 1209 (a)(6), (a)(11).) Under existing law, the court or judge determines whether the person proceeded against is guilty of the contempt charged, and if it be adjudged that he or she is guilty of the contempt, a fine may be imposed on him or her not exceeding $1,000, payable to the court, or he or she may be imprisoned not exceeding five days, or both. (CCP § 1218 (a).) Proposed Law: This bill would authorize a judicial officer of a court in a pilot established pursuant to this section to impose reasonable monetary sanctions, not to exceed $1,500, payable to the court, on an impaneled juror for any knowing violation of a lawful court order, done without good cause or substantial justification, that is supported by clear and convincing evidence. This bill: Requires the Judicial Council, on or before July 1, 2017, to solicit the participation of a representative sample of courts, taking into account size, geography, and other factors identified by the Council, for participation in a pilot project to evaluate the effectiveness of this bill. This bill would specify that it applies only to those courts participating in the pilot project. Provides that sanctions shall not be imposed pursuant to this section except on notice contained in a party's moving or responding papers, or on the court's own motion, after notice and an opportunity to be heard. An order imposing sanctions shall be in writing and shall recite in detail the conduct or circumstances justifying the order. Requires the Judicial Council to conduct an evaluation of the AB 2101 (Gordon) Page 3 of ? pilot project and report the results of the pilot project to the Governor and the Legislature on or before January 1, 2021. The report shall also examine whether the imposition of sanctions affects the number of prospective jurors who report for jury duty. Sunsets the bill's provisions on January 1, 2022. Prior Legislation: AB 2683 (Cooley) Chapter 99/2014 deleted the Penal Code provision that made it a criminal contempt of court (a misdemeanor) for a juror to willfully disobey a court admonishment related to the prohibition on any form of communication or research about the case, including all forms of electronic or wireless communication or research. AB 141 (Fuentes) Chapter 181/2011 made the willful disobedience by a juror of a court admonishment related to the prohibition on any form of communication or research about the case, including all forms of electronic or wireless communication or research, punishable as either a civil or criminal contempt of court pursuant to those provisions. AB 2217 (Fuentes) 2010 was substantially similar to AB 141. This bill was vetoed by the Governor will the following message: I am returning Assembly Bill 2217 without my signature. This bill would require courts to provide specific admonishments to jurors about communication through electronic and wireless devices. This bill is unnecessary. Existing law already sufficiently deals with communications among jurors. Moreover, this type of admonishment is better handled through court rules rather than by statute. Recommended Amendments: To limit the size of the pilot project and the AB 2101 (Gordon) Page 4 of ? potential workload to the Judicial Council to evaluate the project, the author may wish to consider an amendment to limit the number of pilot counties or more clearly specify the representative sample of courts eligible to participate in the pilot project. -- END --